Whether the intention of fraud can be recognized solely on the ground that the person fails to perform his/her obligation in a continuous transaction or lending relationship.

It is difficult to readily conclude that the intentional acquisition of fraud was made solely on the basis of the fact that the debtor was unable to perform his/her obligation on the ground of money painting, etc.

Article 347 of the Criminal Act

Defendant

Defendant

Attorney Park Dong-young

Seoul Criminal Court Decision 84No5655 delivered on June 14, 1985

The judgment of the court below is reversed and the case is remanded to the Panel Division of the Seoul Criminal Court.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

The judgment of the court of first instance maintained by the court below is the defendant who actually runs this company as a director of the non-indicted 1 corporation located in the Sung-gun in Gyeonggi-do (hereinafter omitted), and around May 1983, the above company became a gold of 1,60,000,000 won bonds with the principal of bank rent of 1,60,000 won and monthly interest rate of 20,000,000 won, which led to the operation of the company, and even if it uses another person's bill or check, even if it uses it at the due date of the bill or check, it is difficult to pay it to the non-indicted 1 corporation, and it is 0,000 won to receive money from the non-indicted 1 corporation under the condition that the defendant settles the bill or promissory note issued by him from the non-indicted 1 corporation, and it is 0,000,000 won in total, and 00,000 won in the above non-indicted 1 corporation office located in Mapo, Seoul.

The crime of fraud is established by deceiving other persons and allowing them to omit the payment of property or gain pecuniary benefits from the act of disposal. On the other hand, it is difficult to conclude that there was the intention of deception solely on the grounds that the defendant failed to perform his obligation on the grounds of continuous transaction or lending relationship. According to the consistent statement from the investigation agency of the defendant's change and the hearing of the court below to the court below, the above non-party company continued to raise funds through the above maximum leleth to December 27, 1982 where the above non-party company paid bank room from the time the non-party company was the representative director, and the non-party company did not know that the non-party company violated the rules of evidence that the non-party company did not pay the above lelethy bill after the non-party company's default and approved the non-party company's payment of the non-party company's non-party company's default bill and the defendant did not know the above lethy's payment of the bill with the above lethy's settlement of fraud.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below shall be reversed and the case shall be remanded to the Panel Division of the Seoul Criminal Court. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Park Jong-soo (Presiding Justice)